BBC Radio 4 interview TODAY (now sorted)

Just heard back from them, theyre in touch with sleeplessnight and she's got something organised. So, sorted. thanks.

I am happy to talk to them on the UK aspects of it only.
For me we need to get over the moral question as follows:-

1) Any KSFIOM money was lost in KSFUK
2) If it is lost because KSFUK was run by a load of shysters like a hedge fund rather than a bank as has been suggested then that is the UK FSA's fault since (a) they were warned at the outset by Mr Shearer about the Kaupthing guys; (b) apparently all countries which allowed Kaupthing to set-up deposit taking operations placed certain restrictions on dealing with Iceland (c) they allowed Kaupthing to expand their deposit-taking with the Edge accounts at high rates at a time when presumably it was getting more difficult to generate the profits to pay them, indicating the cash was needed for their balance sheet and was perhaps unsafe.
So the UK Government is morally liable to compensate us since clearly Hector Sants failed to regulate KSFUK in a way that didn't lose 50% of its assets. Despite what G. Brown has said on public occasions (eg questions re Christies Hospital) KSFUK was a UK Bank under the UK Regulator not the Icelandic one.
SO - CONCLUSION IS THAT IF WE LOST OUR MONEY 'COS OF KSFUK'S DEALINGS THEN THIS WAS UK FSA'S FAULT AND HE SHOULD COMPENSATE US
3) If it wasn;t lost through 2) above but because of the "Icesave" issue, KSFUK being otherwise sound, then they should compensate us because our bank was brought down for the COMMON BENEFIT OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE - i.e it was akin to an act of war needed in defence of national interests. Why should the cost of this fall on us IOM depositors?
4) If the UK banking system was "saved" by this intervention - then how many many billions has the UK state and its taxpayers benefited from the sacrifice of our bank. We should be compensated for this reason by them.
5) For the same reason, any extra losses from the 6-month ING period, to BENEFIT THE ENGLISH STATE should be borne by the UK Government. This was partly caused also by the UK Government - stepping into the UK depositors' shoes - meddling officiously with the administration and deposing the biggest real creditor (ie us) from any role in the administration.

6) HMG/the FSA disapplied the normal civilised means of updating the friendly IOM FSC in relation to KSFUK with the sole purpose of keeping the KSFIOM money in the UK pot - ie using our money to increase that available to repay the UK HMG for the money it would spend compensating UK depositors - for the BENEFIT OF THE UK GOVERNMENT

7) The TSC seem to have decided Charities should be brought within the general FSA compensation scheme because "people would expect it/ they need it". That might be right as a general principle, however in this case, what is right is that the UK compensate us because either (i) FSA negligence meant we lost our money in KSFUK or (ii) an act of sacrifice for the benefit of the English banking system (ie trillions of pounds) costing say 250 million is trying to be foisted on us, rather than the English taxpayer. If the latter case is right, we did the UK taxpayer the biggest favour ever. Why won't they pay us the small cost of that?

NG - if no takers I can do it